What?! Nuclear Hoax

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

No. It doesn't prove that at all. As has been pointe out to you repeadly all it proves they were both bombed and burnt. It does not prove what caused that.

Which part of that do you need help with?

It's you that needs help here.

The DAMAGE in Hiroshima doesn't fit with your 'nuke' claim, the buildings left intact prove this.

If you claim 'nukes' are real, how do you explain why they cannot destroy, or even cause damage, to buildings near ground zero, which is supposed to be the area of MOST destruction?

Get the problem, or you'll just ignore it as usual?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Get the problem, or you'll just ignore it as usual?

Answer my question Turbonium1 kun....

a reply to: turbonium1

Oh really? And how do you think you can prove that? Given that ypu think there's no such thing, how do you know what sort of damage would be done?

Some buildings were destroyed, some weren't. Some were burned in the resulting firestorm, some weren't. S*** happens.

Where is your evidence for the hundreds of planes that would have been involved? Where is your actual explanation for the 137-Cs marker layer from atomic testing instead of some ridiculous handwaving claiming it isn't there when thousands of scientists use it all the time?

What is your explanation for the thousands of eyewitnesses, including ones that took the UK government to court? Or the films and photo evidence?

Once again: Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all bombed and burnt. The difference is how that was achieved. You have nothing to support your trolling. Not. One. Thing.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh really? And how do you think you can prove that? Given that ypu think there's no such thing, how do you know what sort of damage would be done?

Some buildings were destroyed, some weren't. Some were burned in the resulting firestorm, some weren't. S*** happens.

Where is your evidence for the hundreds of planes that would have been involved?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people who want to succeed with a secret mission aren't exactly going to show any evidence of their mission, right? Hiding evidence doesn't equate to being NO evidence, in other words. Asking for evidence on such a mission is ridiculous, and you know it.

We deal with the available evidence, and that's what proves it was NOT 'nukes' in any way, it was firebombing.

What evidence do you have that it WAS nukes? Nothing at all. They show 'mushroom clouds', and expect us to believe they are the result of their powerful new weapon called 'A-bombs'. While NOT showing us photos of Tokyo after it was firebombed, because it proves what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the SAME THING as happened to Tokyo, and that's why they hid all photos of Tokyo from the public.

We know for a fact they HAD photos of Tokyo on hand, because the paper admits to it, saying 'photos show' the damage to Tokyo. So they obviously SAW the photos, and there's no reason to NOT show them to us, except for on;y one reason - to hide them from us because of showing what Tokyo looked like was planned for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, soon afterwards, but they were going to claim 'nukes' did it this time, and nothing else could POSSIBLY cause a city to be 'wiped off the map', except for their powerful new weapon, the 'A-bomb'!

Two different claims about the damage....

"In Hiroshima, the bomb exploded over the center of the city, destroying everything in a one-mile radius."

www.aasc.ucla.edu...

"Nearly every structure within one mile of ground zero was destroyed, and almost every building within three miles was damaged."

www.osti.gov...

The first claim is obviously wrong, but still persists today.

Buildings were indeed left intact, which they don't explain, or could explain, because 'nukes' are supposed to destroy everything within a mile radius, no exceptions. So they simply ignore that problem, as if it's not relevant or something!

They are making false claims about 'nukes', without a doubt. Stop making excuses for it, and lying about it. The reality is plain to see, in front of us, and the photos prove it beyond a doubt.

How would a 'nuke' destroy everything in a mile radius except for steel and concrete structures? It's absurd, to claim a powerful bomb cannot damage anything made of steel or concrete, is it not?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Where is your actual explanation for the 137-Cs marker layer from atomic testing instead of some ridiculous handwaving claiming it isn't there when thousands of scientists use it all the time?

What is your explanation for the thousands of eyewitnesses, including ones that took the UK government to court? Or the films and photo evidence?

Prove that 'marker layers' are from 'nukes', if you can. You simply parrot what these 'experts' claim, as if it's a proven fact, or something. It is not proven at all, and saying it's true, over and over, is simply worthless babble.

I'm the one showing you photographic evidence of what happened to those two cities, you're trying to make up ridiculous excuses about it!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Once again: Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all bombed and burnt. The difference is how that was achieved. You have nothing to support your trolling. Not. One. Thing.

The intact structures in all three cities prove they were all firebombed, because it is the exact, specific result of mass firebombing.

a reply to: turbonium1

lets leave the nuclear issue out of the 2 bombings in question(hiroshima and nagasaki), can you explain how 2 aircraft managed to burn entire cities in a matter of a day?

it would take 100's apon 100's of aircraft and tons of ordinance that was NOT located in theater at the time, no one saw these aircraft on either side of the war.

your idea that it was just firebombed REQUIRES 1000's and 1000's of normal service members and civilians to have participated and the facts just dont show that.

----


as far as reinforced concrete and steel structures surviving the blast.. well DUH.

Nuclear weapons aren't going to vaporise everything in the blast radius, do you know what the inverse square law is?

as distance increases the energy in the blast decreases exponentially, and for the church that survived it was said to be at the hypocenter of the blast and heat, basically it was in the 'shadow' of the main blast effects. Also the fact that it was a reinforced concrete structure also helped its survival.

for the cesium isotopes in the soil, it's pointless to explain to you why its real and if we are both being honest you can't prove it isn't real and i can't produce anything to you that will convince you so let's just leave that where it is.


---

your turn to show some proof of your arguments, we have all taken the time to put our arguments out with documented facts and all you do is deny said facts.

can you show us ANY pictures of the massive air raid? can you present ONE person that was on your imagined raid? show one picture of incendiary bombs in the two cities from that day?

are you calling the japanese survivors liars?

why do you deny established and well practiced nuclear science?

who set you on this path? They didnt do you any favors.

I'm busy today and have important things to do, so I'll get my responses to turbonium1 done in advance:

You've presented no evidence.

Where are the proofs you've been asked to provide?

Your empty meaningless rhetoric is just pointless trolling.

Should about cover it until next weekend.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: turbonium1

lets leave the nuclear issue out of the 2 bombings in question(hiroshima and nagasaki), can you explain how 2 aircraft managed to burn entire cities in a matter of a day?

it would take 100's apon 100's of aircraft and tons of ordinance that was NOT located in theater at the time, no one saw these aircraft on either side of the war.

your idea that it was just firebombed REQUIRES 1000's and 1000's of normal service members and civilians to have participated and the facts just dont show that.

----


as far as reinforced concrete and steel structures surviving the blast.. well DUH.

Nuclear weapons aren't going to vaporise everything in the blast radius, do you know what the inverse square law is?

as distance increases the energy in the blast decreases exponentially, and for the church that survived it was said to be at the hypocenter of the blast and heat, basically it was in the 'shadow' of the main blast effects. Also the fact that it was a reinforced concrete structure also helped its survival.

for the cesium isotopes in the soil, it's pointless to explain to you why its real and if we are both being honest you can't prove it isn't real and i can't produce anything to you that will convince you so let's just leave that where it is.


---

your turn to show some proof of your arguments, we have all taken the time to put our arguments out with documented facts and all you do is deny said facts.

can you show us ANY pictures of the massive air raid? can you present ONE person that was on your imagined raid? show one picture of incendiary bombs in the two cities from that day?

are you calling the japanese survivors liars?

why do you deny established and well practiced nuclear science?

who set you on this path? They didnt do you any favors.

When you believe whatever they tell you is true, that's your path, set by them, and nobody can say otherwise!

I'm looking for the truth, that's my only 'path' here.

Stop the crap about my calling them 'liars', that's complete bs.


Do you not realize they actually DID such a mission with mass aircraft in the firebombing of Tokyo? It is a fact, beyond dispute. Get a clue, man!

The only reason we KNOW that, is because they TOLD us about it, and if they hadn't TOLD us, we'd never have known about it!!

They told us a very different story about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which doesn't make any sense, for many reasons, as I've already explained here.


I'm sure you would have expected them to show us the actual photos from these two attacks, instead of showing their fake photos? Good one!

These fools would have shown us actual photos of the attacks, surely! Why not?


If you look at the photos of all three cities after the attacks, it is very obvious to see they match perfectly, and that's impossible with two completely different methods, one of which is claimed to result in a total destruction of a mile radius, which obviously, did NOT happen.


What did they repeatedly claim about the 'A bomb', what it did, how much damage it caused, and so forth? Any idea?

Look at the papers, from the time, and see what they said about it.

They said the A-bombs wiped two cities off the map, or nearly so. They said it caused unseen levels of destruction, as well. Nothing could do that, but a powerful new bomb, a bomb with 'atomic power'!

And we believed it, too. Why not? Look at the massive damage it caused, never seen before!!


That's why they never showed us photos of Tokyo. It was all planned to shock the world, by a powerful bomb, a bomb powerful enough to wipe out an entire city, with ease!

We'd never seen a city wiped off the map before then, in case you aren't aware of that fact, for whatever reason.

A few of your group suggest we knew all about how Tokyo looked after the firebombing, which is nonsense. Nobody saw photos of Tokyo afterwards. Every paper, on Earth, had no photos of Tokyo. Hmm, nothing wacko about that, right?


Sure, they've always shown photos of events before, and after, photos of Tokyo weren't shown in any newspaper, on the entire Earth. They never showed photos of Tokyo in newsreels, or anything else, on the Earth...


So what's the big deal about that, right? Who cares why nobody showed photos of it, they might've had none to show us, or whatever! Nothing fishy about it!

That was something so very innocent, a mistake, nobody had any photos of it, or whatever....

When they loved to show us countless photos of events, trivial or major events, of the greatest, deadliest war of all human history....they don't have any photos of Tokyo wiped off the map, or didn't want to show them in their newspapers?

They'd shown horrific, bloody photos from D-Day, and Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Berlin, Pearl Harbor, and so on....but they never showed photos of Tokyo, and trying to make up excuses is simply absurd, and pure desperation. It's sad, but very common to see from your side. Any excuse will do, whenever the need be.

Needing proof that they didn't show photos of Tokyo, deliberately, or intentionally, or told to not show any photos, assumes it was common for papers or something, and not a single case which had never happened before, or afterwards.

This was far from common practice, and never seen until then, and with every paper on Earth showing no photos, as well, that cannot happen by random chance, mass ignorance, mass stupidity, or anything else, but deliberate. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise, on any level.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I'm busy today and have important things to do, so I'll get my responses to turbonium1 done in advance:

You've presented no evidence.

Where are the proofs you've been asked to provide?

Your empty meaningless rhetoric is just pointless trolling.

Should about cover it until next weekend.

Your side claims that 'nukes' wipe out everything within a mile radius, and they've never, ever said, that steel or concrete structures are immune from their powerful nukes, either! Nor have they ever suggested it, or even implied it. Never.


So we know steel and concrete structures were intact after the 'nukes' hit those cities, and proves there was no 'nukes' at all, in using their own claim about what 'nukes' supposedly do. If they existed, that is.


These structures were right at 'ground zero', or nearly so, and to claim everything within a mile radius will be vaporized into particles, was clearly proven to be a falsehood. A lie, of massive proportions.

a reply to: turbonium1

You want evidence? Go and look at that massive nuclear fusion reactor thats above your head every single chuffing day. The Sun.
Oh I know. Thats fake too.
Honestly, get a grip, man.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I'm busy today and have important things to do, so I'll get my responses to turbonium1 done in advance:

You've presented no evidence.

Where are the proofs you've been asked to provide?

Your empty meaningless rhetoric is just pointless trolling.

Should about cover it until next weekend.

Your side claims that 'nukes' wipe out everything within a mile radius, and they've never, ever said, that steel or concrete structures are immune from their powerful nukes, either! Nor have they ever suggested it, or even implied it. Never.


So we know steel and concrete structures were intact after the 'nukes' hit those cities, and proves there was no 'nukes' at all, in using their own claim about what 'nukes' supposedly do. If they existed, that is.


These structures were right at 'ground zero', or nearly so, and to claim everything within a mile radius will be vaporized into particles, was clearly proven to be a falsehood. A lie, of massive proportions.

That's quite the "straw man" argument you got their.
By the way - our "side" = everyone on the planet who is not a Flat Earth troll.
Come on, remind me how your "side" explains the Sun?

a reply to: turbonium1

on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima there were only 2 aircraft seen from the ground. the weather guys then shortly after the Enola Gay.

you cant prove to me that there was a massive air raid that was carried out in the middle of the day with clear skies that was missed.


Show me ONE document that proves your story that these two cities were firebombed?

show me aircraft flight time records or fuel consumption records or shipping of weapons that were used that day or ANYTHING that is official that proves what your saying.



what is more likely, a secret firebombing that would require everyone who survived to tow the americans lie for their entire lives, or what is said to have happened historically?

A LOT Japanese did not like the americans and would definitely not help them spread the lie of some new super weapon.


You also have to take into account the mindset of most Japanese commanders at the time, they would rather ritual kill themselves than be defeated and would scream about the americans lying.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1

You want evidence? Go and look at that massive nuclear fusion reactor thats above your head every single chuffing day. The Sun.
Oh I know. Thats fake too.
Honestly, get a grip, man.

The Sun is real, but we cannot replicate the perpetual energy the Sun creates, can we? No, much as we've tried to, this "massive fusion reactor", as you call it, cannot be replicated, in any way. So trying to point to a real source of energy, like the Sun, as 'proof' of something we cannot replicate, doesn't wash.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I'm busy today and have important things to do, so I'll get my responses to turbonium1 done in advance:

You've presented no evidence.

Where are the proofs you've been asked to provide?

Your empty meaningless rhetoric is just pointless trolling.

Should about cover it until next weekend.

Your side claims that 'nukes' wipe out everything within a mile radius, and they've never, ever said, that steel or concrete structures are immune from their powerful nukes, either! Nor have they ever suggested it, or even implied it. Never.


So we know steel and concrete structures were intact after the 'nukes' hit those cities, and proves there was no 'nukes' at all, in using their own claim about what 'nukes' supposedly do. If they existed, that is.


These structures were right at 'ground zero', or nearly so, and to claim everything within a mile radius will be vaporized into particles, was clearly proven to be a falsehood. A lie, of massive proportions.

That's quite the "straw man" argument you got their.
By the way - our "side" = everyone on the planet who is not a Flat Earth troll.
Come on, remind me how your "side" explains the Sun?

Why did you quote my post, then ignore everything I said, except to cherry pick out one word, and call me a troll?

If you can't address my points, why are you even here? I'm here to discuss the issue, which is the purpose of threads, to discuss issues.

It seems like you cannot address the points I've raised, and have nothing left to try but cherry pick a word out, and launch unwarranted personal attacks. And then, try to ask ME a question about something else!

Address my points, if you can. If not, there's no point in coming here, is there?

originally posted by: penroc3
on August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima there were only 2 aircraft seen from the ground. the weather guys then shortly after the Enola Gay.

you cant prove to me that there was a massive air raid that was carried out in the middle of the day with clear skies that was missed.


Show me ONE document that proves your story that these two cities were firebombed?

show me aircraft flight time records or fuel consumption records or shipping of weapons that were used that day or ANYTHING that is official that proves what your saying.



what is more likely, a secret firebombing that would require everyone who survived to tow the americans lie for their entire lives, or what is said to have happened historically?

A LOT Japanese did not like the americans and would definitely not help them spread the lie of some new super weapon.


You also have to take into account the mindset of most Japanese commanders at the time, they would rather ritual kill themselves than be defeated and would scream about the americans lying.

First point - you cannot prove there were only two planes over Hiroshima that day, same as I cannot prove there were many planes over the city that day, either. It's very easy to get 'eyewitnesses' for the mafia, who'll swear on the Bible that a mob hitman didn't kill someone, they saw, clear as day, that a big, black man killed the man. And there are no 'eyewitnesses' who saw the mob hit-man there, either. According to your argument, the mob hit-man would be innocent, right? Or certainly not found guilty, at least. No 'proof' of him doing it, right?

Not necessarily. The murder scene has actual evidence of the crime, itself, which is FAR more valid than so-called 'eyewitness' accounts. Especially when you consider who is on trial - the mob, or, in our case, it would be the US government/military establishment. Both have very powerful means of influencing people to tow the line, and vouch for their 'innocence'

I'm sure you aren't so naive as to not have a clue about this, right?


Here's more proof for you...

"On this day in 1945, at 8:16 a.m. Japanese time, an American B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, drops the world's first atom bomb, over the city of Hiroshima. Approximately 80,000 people are killed as a direct result of the blast, and another 35,000 are injured"

Japanese radio reported American incendiary attacks on Hiroshima, at 8:20 AM Japanese time. AP reported this in an article from a newspaper on Aug. 6, 1945, which is shown in this clip, at the 19 second mark...

www.youtube.com...

Look at the times reported for both events - 4 minutes difference!

That alone proves Hiroshima was firebombed at almost the exact same time they claimed the 'A-bomb' dropped on the city! Another point - don't try to excuse the firebombing as a preventative measure before the 'A-bomb' was dropped, because the 'A-bomb' supposedly dropped 4 minutes BEFORE the firebombing occurred. So, there is no 'protecting the A-bomb mission' excuse here.

To continue...

Hiroshima was a wooden shantytown constructed in a concentrated area. It was a sitting duck for a carefully crafted firebombing terror attack with an atomic-bomb psyop added on for full effect. In the previous article, regular TNN commenter “Brabantian” mentions evidence from Swedish engineer and nuclear expert Anders Björkman. The smoking gun: The day and hour Hiroshima was bombed, U.S. air command logged a fleet of 66 bombers for an operation in nearby Imabari Japan. But this city no longer existed. It had been wiped out in two previous raids. This was the fleet that firebombed Hiroshima.

I'll try to find out where the log report is, if it can be found online, anyway. This would be the evidence you were asking me for, right? We'll see if it can be found somewhere.

More evidence that Hiroshima was firebombed..

U.S. Major Alexander P. de Seversky, who in 1945 inspected the bombed-towns of Japan, testified:

In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan. There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.

It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.

I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.

At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.

What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs – the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava – just as in other Japanese cities.

The concrete buildings nearest to the centre of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual.

www.renegadetribune.com...

So this report was from - "U.S. Major Alexander P. de Seversky, who in 1945 inspected the bombed-towns of Japan.."

He saw the exact same damage, the same intact structures, as he had seen in all the other cities which were firebombed.

He expected very different damage from those other cities, of course, because Hiroshima was destroyed by a powerful new weapon, the 'A-bomb', which they said would vaporize everything near the blast zone. Once again, he said...

"At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena."

They claimed 'nukes', like the 'A-bomb', vaporize everything within it's blast zone, which is said to be about 1 mile radius around the blast point. That's exactly why the Major expected to see everything vaporized around the supposed blast point. This would obviously be very different than in the firebombed cities, which didn't vaporize everything in one area.

The fact he saw no "bald spot", the tell-tale sign of an 'A-bomb', is absolute proof that no 'A'bomb' was dropped on Hiroshima.


One source you should really look at is here...

heiwaco.tripod.com...

It goes into much more detail on why nukes don't work, among many other things.

a reply to: turbonium1

To summarise:

"All the evidence that supports me is true. All the evidence that proves me wrong is fake and everyone is lying."

You also prove quite nicely that you have no evidence to support your claim that there was a fleet of bombers destroying Hiroshima, you're just convinced that this must have happened so it must be true despite nothing to support that.

Seversky, by the way, did not dispute for one second the existence of nuclear weapons. He thought the US needed to reorganise its military to fight nuclear wars better.

hrc.contentdm.oclc.org...

He blamed Hiroshima's destruction on flimsy buildings. Amazingly, lots of wooden stuff burned down in the subsequent firestorm, eg:

www.nytimes.com...

"Maj. Alexander P. de Seversky declared today that the fearsome atomic bomb that hastened Japan's defeat could kill no more people than a regular ten-ton bomb if dropped on United States cities of steel and concrete."

He was just convinced that they weren't as powerful as claimed, and didn't account for the fact that science developed much bigger ones.

If you want eye witness reports, try these instead:

www.newyorker.com...

Your case is entirely built on real world experience not quite matching theory which is almost always the case in absolutely anything, and the only "evidence" you've presented is subjective and cherry picked. If you're relying on the idiot behind the Heiwaco website then you really do have no argument to present. Your youtube redneck quotes Japanese reports as fact but ignores all the other things on the page. Again, cherry picking and blinkered.

As usual your post is long on rhetoric and ignorance, short on facts. You are relying on other sources that are also ignorant and fact free. As usual you skim over the facts, facts like there being a well defined marker layer in soils worldwide that are a direct result of atomic weapons testing, facts like the eyewitness testimony, film and photographic evidence, scientific data and well extablished theory and practice in the nuclear industry. You dump all that for knee-jerk contrarianist nonsense regurgitated from any hysterical conspiracy garbage you can find that reinforces whatever ridiculous notion your banging a gong about this week. You make ridiculous claims and then forget all about them when you're confronted about them: Where are the lakes providing HEP without a dam?

Facts.

Any time you like.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

To summarise:

"All the evidence that supports me is true. All the evidence that proves me wrong is fake and everyone is lying."

You also prove quite nicely that you have no evidence to support your claim that there was a fleet of bombers destroying Hiroshima, you're just convinced that this must have happened so it must be true despite nothing to support that.

Seversky, by the way, did not dispute for one second the existence of nuclear weapons. He thought the US needed to reorganise its military to fight nuclear wars better.

hrc.contentdm.oclc.org...

He blamed Hiroshima's destruction on flimsy buildings. Amazingly, lots of wooden stuff burned down in the subsequent firestorm, eg:

www.nytimes.com...

"Maj. Alexander P. de Seversky declared today that the fearsome atomic bomb that hastened Japan's defeat could kill no more people than a regular ten-ton bomb if dropped on United States cities of steel and concrete."

He was just convinced that they weren't as powerful as claimed, and didn't account for the fact that science developed much bigger ones.

If you want eye witness reports, try these instead:

www.newyorker.com...

Your case is entirely built on real world experience not quite matching theory which is almost always the case in absolutely anything, and the only "evidence" you've presented is subjective and cherry picked. If you're relying on the idiot behind the Heiwaco website then you really do have no argument to present. Your youtube redneck quotes Japanese reports as fact but ignores all the other things on the page. Again, cherry picking and blinkered.

As usual your post is long on rhetoric and ignorance, short on facts. You are relying on other sources that are also ignorant and fact free. As usual you skim over the facts, facts like there being a well defined marker layer in soils worldwide that are a direct result of atomic weapons testing, facts like the eyewitness testimony, film and photographic evidence, scientific data and well extablished theory and practice in the nuclear industry. You dump all that for knee-jerk contrarianist nonsense regurgitated from any hysterical conspiracy garbage you can find that reinforces whatever ridiculous notion your banging a gong about this week. You make ridiculous claims and then forget all about them when you're confronted about them: Where are the lakes providing HEP without a dam?

Facts.

Any time you like.

The fact that no 'bald spot' was in Hiroshima, which 'nukes' are all supposed to do?

Ignoring that fact again and again won't work, so any time you like, try and address it.


Saying a 'nuke' will vaporize everything within a mile radius, and knowing it did not happen in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, seems to leave you without any argument at all. But go ahead, I'll wait to hear your latest absurd excuses, it's always entertaining.

"Seversky, by the way, did not dispute for one second the existence of nuclear weapons"

Why would he admit to such a fact as that, it would do nothing but get get him six feet under, so get a clue, for once.

He knew there was no "bald spot". He also knew that a 'nuke' would always leave a 'bald spot', according to what he was told.
When he found NO "bald spot", and saw the exact same damage, and intact buildings, in all the other cities, which were firebombed, I'm sure he wasn't a moron about what was really going on. He certainly didn't have an explanation for the lack of any "bald spot", either. He just towed the line, like everyone else did, because he had no other choice, with a bullet in his head being the only other option!

Are you that naive?

Facts?

Facts?

Anyone?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Facts?

Facts?

Anyone?

Turbo has never needed any facts. He simply makes claims based on the way the Universe works in his head, rubbishes mercilessly any and all facts that prove that his talking rubbish and then repeats things in the hope that people will forget that he said the same thing a few pages back.

At least he somehow hasn't slipped his Flat Earth silliness into this thread.

86

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I'm busy today and have important things to do, so I'll get my responses to turbonium1 done in advance:

You've presented no evidence.

Where are the proofs you've been asked to provide?

Your empty meaningless rhetoric is just pointless trolling.

Should about cover it until next weekend.

Your side claims that 'nukes' wipe out everything within a mile radius, and they've never, ever said, that steel or concrete structures are immune from their powerful nukes, either! Nor have they ever suggested it, or even implied it. Never.


So we know steel and concrete structures were intact after the 'nukes' hit those cities, and proves there was no 'nukes' at all, in using their own claim about what 'nukes' supposedly do. If they existed, that is.


These structures were right at 'ground zero', or nearly so, and to claim everything within a mile radius will be vaporized into particles, was clearly proven to be a falsehood. A lie, of massive proportions.

That's quite the "straw man" argument you got their.
By the way - our "side" = everyone on the planet who is not a Flat Earth troll.
Come on, remind me how your "side" explains the Sun?

Why did you quote my post, then ignore everything I said, except to cherry pick out one word, and call me a troll?

If you can't address my points, why are you even here? I'm here to discuss the issue, which is the purpose of threads, to discuss issues.

It seems like you cannot address the points I've raised, and have nothing left to try but cherry pick a word out, and launch unwarranted personal attacks. And then, try to ask ME a question about something else!

Address my points, if you can. If not, there's no point in coming here, is there?

What personal attack?
The science which explains how nuclear reactions work is real.
Its up to you to show us how that science is wrong.
Over to you. If you can.
Im waiting.